• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
 Name Jagabanta NingthoujamModule Number/ Tutorial Group UWC2101S/ Section 2Assignment submitted Paper 3Purpose Final SubmissionDate of submission 16/4/2007 Number of words 3260
In the name of National Security
Figure 1 Figure 2
“There are many ways to run a country but only one way to treat people:with decency and respect for their uniqueness as individuals”
Former Philippines President Mrs. Corazon Aquino, addressing the UNGeneral Assembly in 1986
1
 
Introduction
Disturbing images. A man sets himself on fire. A woman lays hungry for acause alien to the authority. What is it that has driven these people to their fortune or rather the lack of it? The picture on the left is that of Pebam Chittranjan, a civilian whoset himself on fire to protest the custodial rape and murder of Thangjam ManoramaDevi. This heinous act was committed back in 2004 in Manipur, a North-Eastern state
1
Australian Government,
 Human Rights Manual: 1993 International Year of theWorld’s Indigenous People
(Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service,Canberra, 1993), p. 99.
 
 
of India and it managed to trigger massive public uproars including naked protests byelderly women. Manorama was a victim of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act,1958, under which army officials are authorized to make unwarranted arrest of any person under the pretext of suspected involvement in terrorism and secessionistactivity. This Act has been enforced in volatile areas like Kashmir and the North-EastIndia, including the state of Manipur. Chittranjan’s human torch act was a clear testament to the intensity of public anguish and the need to repeal the act. Later hesuccumbed to his wounds.The picture on the right is that of Irom Sharmila Chanu, a Manipuri poet and ahumanitarian who has been on a hunger strike since November 2000 for the repealingof this act. Her resolute decision follows the Malom killings of November 2, 2000,when in Malom town of Manipur, 10 civilians were shot dead by Indian army personals in an angry outburst following the bombing of an army convoy byinsurgents. This incident were one of many such cases of arbitrary killings committed by armed forces on the ground of controlling insurgency but prompted more by their own emotions. This act empowers the armed forces to commit such crimes withoutthe notice of any superior authority.The question that stems from these two pictures is clear and concise. Why andhow can an act constructed for the maintenance of National Security be the source of such drastic public anguish and resentment against the National consensus? Unlike thequestion, the answer does not come straightforward. It lies partially in the multiculturalmakeup and political history of the modern Indian nation and partially in the verynature of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958.This essay will draw upon historical facts and political reasons to the rise of insurgency as well as expose the draconian façade of AFSPA as I try and derive aconclusion to the complex issue of the need to draw a line between National Securityand Human Security. Using Manipur and AFSPA as specific examples I shallcorroborate that rather than quell the secessionist movements, misuse of this act isaggravating the already volatile situation and both directly and indirectly acceleratingthe human rights violation in the region.
 
 
Background: The politics and the problems contributing to insurgency and thenature of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958
Historically Manipur began as an independent princely state with very littleinfluence from the Indo – Aryan Culture of the Ancient and Medieval IndianCivilizations. Vaishnavite Hinduism was her only connecting thread with India beforethe British conquest in 1891. Even then she remained a titular monarchy. Finally whenIndia won her independence in 1947, the sudden departure of the British created a political vacuum in the entire North-East region. Consequently there was muchrambling over the sharing of these territories among the new Asiatic Powers, viz India,China, East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh), and Myanmar.
2
It is not hard to noticethat the opinions of the local inhabitants were never taken into consideration when thedivisions were taking place. This was true for most other erstwhile princely states,which were under colonial rule.Meanwhile in 1947, Manipur, in the image of their colonizer Great Britain, hadestablished itself as a monarchical socialist democracy and had drafted and passed theManipur Constitution Act in 1947 and elections were held. However, in consonancewith the beliefs of most present day secessionist groups, in 1949 at a meeting inShillong, officials of the Indian government made the Manipuri king sign the merger agreement under duress. “The agreement was never ratified in the Manipur LegislativeAssembly. Rather, the Assembly was dissolved and Manipur was kept under thecharge of a Chief Commissioner. There were protests, but the carrot and stick policylaunched by the Indian Government successfully suppressed any opposition.”
3
Nehruand his home minister Sardar Patel would have never imagined that their callousapproach to nation building would sow the seed for the present day militancy in theregion.
2
 
2
South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre,
 Armed Forces Special Powers Act: A Study in National Security tyranny
, updated December, 1995,<http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/resources/armed_forces.htm>
3
Ibid.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...